Becky Garrison’s Responses to Your Questions

This statement which Harris quotes in numerous other publications could easily lead one to conclude that he believes there is no God.

So, bottom line, he never actually said it, she made it up.

What they are missing is that throughout the book I chide Christians for giving the New Atheists plenty of fodder.

I don’t think we missed anything. Mostly we were commenting on responses to Hemant’s questions. I doubt any of us have read it, it was only released yesterday.

Does this mean they can dish it out but they can’t take it.

Once again, not an answer, just more of the shrill lack of nuance that she so deplores – in others.

Ms. Garrison makes weasels jealous.

And frankly I’m surprised that so many “friendly atheists” here seem to identify so strongly with the “New Atheists” and are so quick to defend them.

For the record, she has not skewered any of my sacred cows, as I have never actually read any of these authors. Everything I said was based on her answers (and I use the term loosely) to Hemant’s questions.

You don’t have to be a supporter of (or even acquainted with) those four people to object to an dishonest and uncivil attack like hers.

BG: People tend not to like it when their sacred cow gets skewered.

The whole point of atheism is that we don’t have sacred cows, even in the most figurative sense. Richard Dawkins isn’t my pastor, Dan Dennett isn’t my rabbi, and so forth; these people don’t pretend to speak for me any more than an apathetic nontheist off the street who hasn’t written a book, and I have no urge to defend them if they say stupid things. If she wants to attack their character directly, she’s welcome to do that (within legal bounds), but there’s no reason random atheists should come to their personal defense. However, that’s very different from attacking the way atheists in general see the world, and for that we are certainly entitled to a vigorous debate. The negative response was mostly along the lines of “this is sloppy criticism for the following reasons” rather than “but Christopher Hitchens is a sweetheart!” To add one bad metaphor to another, “taking it as well as dishing it out” doesn’t mean we have to take it lying down.

I gave her the benefit of the doubt all the way until that last answer. She can’t have it both ways – she can’t accuse the authors in “shrill and unnuanced” terms of being shrill and unnuanced. From this extended interview, it sure doesn’t sound like her goal is to cool down the argument. I’m very interested in this particular issue of whether or not atheists should be allowed to talk about the existence of god without holding divinity degrees, but I’m not sure she’s the one with whom to have that discussion. It’s difficult to communicate with someone who just can’t accept the fact that science isn’t our religion, Darwin isn’t our God, and Dennett/Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Mehta aren’t his prophets, because we simply have none of the above. Let’s save our energy for someone who’s ready to call an atheist an atheist.

So until the rest of us have a chance to read the book for ourselves, we really don’t have much basis to judge whether her overall critique is terrible or not.

Now that’s a legitimate point, although I’m not sure I can wade through that much vitriol.

I used the Amazon online reader to check out five or six pages at random – which was still nothing like a fair sample of content, but the tone was unrelieved bile. I did see her taking christians to task, as she pointed out above that she did.

I was especially taken with this quote about the why god won’t heal amputees site: “This slimy site oozed snark, but without the redemptive bite that makes for quality satire”. Say what? Can someone PLEASE tell this woman what satire is? And isn’t?

Out of fairness, I also read five pages at random from works by Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens (not for content, just for tone). The first three I found (in my admittedly small sample) to be free of venom. Hitchens not so much, but damn, the man is funny!

BG: I listed these three men because they are three of the leading theological thinkers alive today – I would expect that someone who debates the existence of God to at least engage with the leading thinkers on this topic. After all, these are the same dudes who slam Christians (and rightly so) for using shoddy scientific research to launch, say, Creationism museums.

They don’t seem to have come up with any arguments after the middle ages, and despite Garrison’s suggestion, Pascal’s wager and the argument from design are still in use by theologens. Theology is not a legitimate form of study. It’s like asking an astronomer to consult astrologers, chemists to consult alchemists, doctors to consult witchdoctors. Creationism isn’t science, theology isn’t philosophy.

Richard Dawkins has responded to this criticism:

Letters: Theology has no place in a university

The Rev Mr Hall encourages me to engage with theology academics whose “intelligence is at least equal to Dawkins’ own”. Indeed I should enjoy engaging with my neighbour, the Principal of Wycliffe Hall, who said in The Independent (25 May), “We are committed to bringing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to those who don’t know. In this land, that’s 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them.” Presumably he is one of the intelligent theologians with whom I should engage.

We who doubt that “theology” is a subject at all, or who compare it with the study of leprechauns, are eagerly hoping to be proved wrong. Of course, university departments of theology house many excellent scholars of history, linguistics, literature, ecclesiastical art and music, archaeology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, iconology, and other worthwhile and important subjects. These academics would be welcomed into appropriate departments elsewhere in the university. But as for theology itself, defined as “the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God”, a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today’s universities.

The Emptiness of Theology

http://richarddawkins.net/article,88,The-Emptiness-of-Theology,Richard-Dawkins

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

I’m disappointed in the answer that she gave to my question about N.T. Wright et al. She didn’t offer any specifics. I also which that she had been more clear in what she meant about “using Medieval theological theories that have seen been refined….” I know that Dawkins messed up his treatment of Aquinas’ Fourth Way argument to the point that he offered a strawman, but I’m not sure if that’s the sort of thing that she was talking about.

Drew,

Who specifically? Care for me to list the theologians who have clearly come up with often radically different arguments?

List theologians who do something I say they don’t do? Quote them, or present their arguments.

This assumption is exactly why Eagleton’s comment is worth exploring. To say that someone like Barth “uses” these two lines of argument is as absurd as saying that Marion or Weil or Polkinghorne or Torrance do.

Who is saying that?

Your comment is evidence of the perpetuation of a clear strawman argument given impetus by Dawkins and others

I think people should note the absence of any evidence from your response.

Also, I don’t even think that these folks need more sophisticated theology backgrounds or knowledge of theological discourse to make their arguments less fallacious. At least some sense of the sociological implications of what they argue would suffice. But the sociology of religion is something completely ignored as well. Rodney Stark is a better dialogue partner to begin with in this regard.

Because they can’t possible disagree with the divine authority that is Rodney Stark?

BG said using Medieval theological theories that have seen been refined (and in some cases disproved) by contemporary scholars
I was wondering if she (or any of the other nice Christians who post here) could explain how Theological theries are revised, or even developed in the first place. What criteria are used for evaluation?
Note: I am not mooing, oinking maybe, but never mooing.

‘“Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”’

Dawkins has read the Bible.

Eagleton claims that listening to somebody talk on Christianity after reading the Bible is painful.

What an idiot he is!

How can reading the Bible disqualify you from commentating on Christianity?

And, of course, Dawkins has read far more than just the Bible.

Why, Dawkins gets emails and letters literally every day from Christians telling him about Christianity.

Yet Eagleton thinks that having 15 years of Christians daily sending you letters and emails explaining Christianity disqualifies you from talking about Christianity.

I guess that is because Christians just can’t make sensible arguments, so reading emails and letters every day from Christians for the last 10 to 15 years is not going to teach you anything.

Steven,

Reading the bible and getting emails does not equate with having the training to critically engage sophisticated arguments.

Yet Eagleton thinks that having 15 years of Christians daily sending you letters and emails explaining Christianity disqualifies you from talking about Christianity.

Eagleton is not making an argumentum ad verecundiam here as it seems you have interpreted it. His point is that Dawkins over-generalizes Christian thought in order to make his argument work better. He presents a definition of faith, for example, that seems to rely solely on the passage from Hebrews regarding evidence without taking into account alternative theories for what faith actually is. His definition of faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence. But do theologians argue this? Not exactly (see Migliore’s text or McGrath’s text introducing theology for only two). Moreover, Dawkins takes this further by asserting in TGD that as faith has no evidence as such (and note that Dawkins is a scientist and so evidence is that which is physical and can be disproven through empirical hypothetical constructs) it cannot be critiqued in its form or content.

Eagleton’s point is that this misses the arguments within religious discourse, for instance, over the nature of faith itself (Barth’s arguments for adult versus infant baptism are one important example in this regard). If faith is a description of a trust relationship to something with evidence conceived differently then Dawkins’ offers one definition of faith among many others that should be equally critiqued. That Dawkins gives such a condensed argument of the issues (and I would say totally glosses over the arguments) surrounding the terms and settles on his own concept without arguing it from other conflicting concepts is one problem among many others where Dawkins’ understanding of religion in general seems misinformed.

This is also a point that McGrath and van Huyssteen among others have made.

Drew,

I mentioned a few who would not simply do that. Barth does not (see his doctrine of election), Weil does not (see her argument for God’s self-elected limitation in order to account for the presence of radical evil), or Torrance’s arguments that discuss multiple levels of reality, etc.

None of your examples seem to address the existence of God.

The issue that I was raising is that you oversimplified an entire discipline by boiling it down to two arguments which are not the foundation of a lot of theological arguments.

I did not present the two arguments as the entirety of all arguments from theology, but that doesn’t seem to have been the issue when you first responded to me.

You did not “say” it but it is what you did by oversimplifying a discipline in order to make your argument work.

Indeed I did not. Is it an implication? No, they could be using other old arguments, or not addressing the existence of God at all.

What more evidence do you want? A petri dish or a statistically significant regression model?

Some new arguments…

Did I mention that he is “a divine authority”? Stop making stuff up. I said he is a better dialogue partner. Throw Robert Bellah, Robert Wuthnow, Martin Marty and Peter Berger in there too. Happy now or still care to miss the point of my contention which you have clearly done here.

No, here’s what you said:

At least some sense of the sociological implications of what they argue would suffice. But the sociology of religion is something completely ignored as well. Rodney Stark is a better dialogue partner to begin with in this regard.

DREW
If you disagree with this, offer an empirical proof that love does not exist, or offer a similar proof that it does.

CARR
The number of clergymen who have thought to themselves ‘They will never be able to produce proof that I love 11 year old boys….’.

You would think religious people would stop using the meme that there is no empirical proof that love exists.

Drew,

None of your examples seem to address the existence of God.

Proofs of the existence of God have shrunk since they fail. God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven and a smart theologian (or person) should be aware of this. But one can work with more or less probable outcomes in one’s propositions – i.e. more reasoned arguments. Very few I read would follow Aquinas’ argument of a prime mover as a proof for instance.

By the way, the Wager is not a proof for the existence of God either. It is a statement arguing that it is more reasonable to believe in God than not to believe in God. Clearly there are issues with this, but that should be clarified.

Indeed I did not. Is it an implication? No, they could be using other old arguments, or not addressing the existence of God at all.

Certainly was implied. Why must they be using other old arguments? You seem to have a view that theology as a discipline cannot progress beyond the shackles of pre-modernity.

Some new arguments…

Did I mention that he is “a divine authority”? Stop making stuff up. I said he is a better dialogue partner. Throw Robert Bellah, Robert Wuthnow, Martin Marty and Peter Berger in there too. Happy now or still care to miss the point of my contention which you have clearly done here.

No, here’s what you said:

At least some sense of the sociological implications of what they argue would suffice. But the sociology of religion is something completely ignored as well. Rodney Stark is a better dialogue partner to begin with in this regard.

Hardly new, just a few more names to drop in my bag of “divine authorities” – I did mention dialogue partner again didn’t I? And I did not mention that Stark is any divine authority. That is what you made up. I am addressing the point that Dawkins in particular needs to dialogue with other theories of religion. Sociology seems to be a nice foundation for this since it deals with behaviors and how those behaviors are related to beliefs. This reveals the flaw that Dawkins view is over-simplified in order to support his argument rhetorically, but does not do so substantially based on evidence that different ways of believing lead to different behaviors. He essentially flattens faith to a monolithic category and then draws conclusions from that flawed foundation. Hence the need for other dialogue partners rather than his strawman.

DREW
If you disagree with this, offer an empirical proof that love does not exist, or offer a similar proof that it does.

CARR
The number of clergymen who have thought to themselves ‘They will never be able to produce proof that I love 11 year old boys….’.

You would think religious people would stop using the meme that there is no empirical proof that love exists.

So Steven cannot answer the hypothesis then. How about any other “good” then? Or any other value in general? Or are they all just memes that you do not care to articulate or validate? Are we all products of that much of a deterministic existence? Clearly there is ample disagreement in the social sciences about this. Or, are the social sciences just a meaningless set of disciplines that study these “memes” without even considering “meme” as a very functional variable to assess behavioral phenomena? Are they just ignorant?

Do we just assume that it’s a good and unknowingly transmit it? Are we that slavish to determinism?

IOW by just saying that it is just a “meme” you do nothing but offer an unsupported claim.

Sure cultures “transmit” their idea of the good from one generation to the next and it develops over time, but this does not address the question of scientific proof that love indeed exists.

Drew,

Proofs of the existence of God have shrunk since they fail. God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven and a smart theologian (or person) should be aware of this.

Which was my original point.

But one can work with more or less probable outcomes in one’s propositions – i.e. more reasoned arguments. Very few I read would follow Aquinas’ argument of a prime mover as a proof for instance.

As far as I’m aware it’s either old arguments like Aquinas’s, or they don’t address it at all, also my original point.

Certainly was implied. Why must they be using other old arguments?

Because as far as I’m aware they haven’t got any new arguments.

AJ wrote:

Because as far as I’m aware they haven’t got any new arguments.

Somebody hasn’t seen the Banana video.

well said MC now on to MY question.

Well it seems that Ms Garrison has a lot of you riled up. Its seems some of you are basing your opinions of her views based purely on these two blog entries, and have yet to read her book which probably better represents her position. As an ardent atheist, and a man of reason, I am now obligated to read her book to better understand the argument against the unholy 4.

I would like to thank BG for taking the time to engage in dialogue with this blog.

It seems I have a book to read now.

Drew said:

Reading the bible and getting emails does not equate with having the training to critically engage sophisticated arguments.

It is astonishing to me that people are still discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – no, sorry, its updated, non-medieval equivalent.

All those sophisticated arguments, that enormous edifice of thought and rationale that Drew quotes so readily, however modernized(?), is all based on something that doesn’t exist.

Why should Dawkins, or anyone, spend years training themselves on something equivalent to astrology just to refute it, when the simple fact that there is no evidence is enough?

PS – ‘Love’ is a function built into the brains of all animals that raise their young, and even more strongly into the brains of social animals. It is not unique to humans, and I see no relevance to the question of whether a god exists.

Thank you, I was starting to feel like a ghost around here!

I think they call that “begging the question” Claire.

No, it’s simply putting the burden of proof where it belongs.

Oh, and also commenting on the absurd ways people find to spend massive amounts of time and energy, such as football, video games, or theology.

Does this mean they can dish it out but they can’t take it.

The more I think about this, the more I think our tone was reflective of the opportunity for those of us who do go easy on the nicer, more open-minded, liberal, and sincere christians, to take on someone who made herself an easy mark.

Rather than an argument that those on this blog are nasty to all christians, I see our responses to this author as evidence that many of us choose our targets with a certain level of discernment.

Third, are we really “going ballistic”? I just thought were were getting as good as we were being given (I was giving it better, but that’s just because I’m a better writer than Garrison, and more modest and charming as well.).

C’mon, Siamang, give yourself a little credit here! 😉

You know, I honestly haven’t read enough Harris to make a supportable case for why I put him there. It was more of an impression based on some things I’ve read online. I withdraw the assertion if you’ve got a better grounding in reading them.

I’d say that on a friendliness scale, Dennett is about as sweet as Santa Claus and he looks like him, too. 😉 Harris is unfailingly polite and kind, though forthright about his viewpoint. He is quite respectful of spirituality and spiritual experiences, as well – he just thinks they shouldn’t be interpreted through a supernatural paradigm. Dawkins is more critical and will actively say that he hopes religion disappears (which neither Dennett nor Harris would say). Hitchens is just an a**hole, frankly. Though Claire’s right, he’s something of a guilty pleasure for me because he’s incredibly funny and his wit is razor sharp.

but I could name dozens of other names of commenters whose constant MO is ridicule and stereotyping. I’m really surprised if you don’t see it too.

I choose not to post on many of the subjects here when I feel that there’s cheap shots being taken and piling on. Yes, I do see it. Often I feel the posts starting it are Hemant’s “This one is REALLY going to offend people!” humor posts. But I give the man some latitude as it’s his site and if I don’t like it, I’ve got my own site to retreat to.

But on the other hand at least now the shoe is on the other foot. Some of you here are getting a taste of what it’s like to have your side falsely caricatured and mocked, and what it’s like to be lumped in with the extremists.

I find it no insult at all to be lumped with “extremists” like Dennett. However I do understand how insulting it would be to be associated with the more extreme members of the world of believers.

I am not offended to be lumped with Dennett, nor Dawkins nor Harris or even Hitchens except to the extent that it means that I cannot have a productive conversation with you and other Christians, Mike. The Horsemen are not murderers, they are not violent. They are merely slightly emphatic writers of books with some good arguments, some bad ones and some wildly off the mark. If this conversation went away, and all Christians lumped me with them, it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

What WOULD bother me is if within this conversation I was lumped with them, and in so lumping my participation and contribution was dismissed by Christians as yet another atheist crusader for an unholy cause. That lumping is what I argue against for the sake of this conversation, and to continue to have a constructive dialogue with Christians.

Here we have Garrison saying she wants the things we are actually doing: IE a constructive dialogue, and yet standing for the exact opposite with her actions. And yet standing up for constructive dialogue is seen by you as “going ballistic” and ‘dishing it out but not being able to take it.’

Sorry, but she’s getting in the way of the dialogue, and I think the positive dialogue is worth fighting for. If she’d rather be a “satirist” who likes a one-way conversation, she’s free to lump me with those “Darwinians” who worship an old dead guy. I just don’t want her tarbrush to interfere with a positive conversation.

Mike,
I know you would like us all to rebuke the four horsemen. Well, here are some places I disagree with them (keeping in mind that I have not read a single atheist book):

Dawkins – “Child abuse”, “The Jewish Lobby“, “eugenics may not be bad”, the “Brights”, and various other places where Dawkins just doesn’t seem to listen to himself.
Dennett – In a word, “Memes”
Harris – “Moderates enabling extremists”, and his attitude towards parapsychology.
Hitchens – everything

Is that enough?

Mind you, Dawkins does state in The God Delusion ‘A good case can be made for the educational benefits of teaching comparative religion’

Naturally, people like Becky Garrison are not going to quote Dawkins say that children should be taught about religion.

How are they going to sell their books if they can’t spread slanders about Dawkins saying that teaching children about religion is the same as child abuse?

Get real folks! You are no more going to get an honest assessment of Dawkins by Becky Garrision than Osama Bin Laden is going to say that alcohol can sometimes be used for relaxtion without any harm being done.

Your level of ignorance is astounding.

Can I call a foul? 🙁

Steven, AJ what is a meme exactly?

So is there any reason to use the word “meme” instead of a more specific word? Does it convey anything that other words already in use don’t convey?

What’s in a word? ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’.

Which word would you prefer? I am happy with whatever you want to call it.

I only used ‘meme’ to tease Mike….

OLVLZL
which of the heroes of neo-atheism said what

CARR
I see.

So if somebody says Dawkins equates teaching children about religion with child abuse, and then we quote Dawkins saying there are benefits to teaching children about religion, then we are immediately accused of just bowing down to neo-atheist authority, and not interested in honest discussion.

Wow! You have to admire the chutzpah of these people.

If you defend against their lies, then you are no longer interested in honest discussion.

And if you throw in a word like ‘meme’, they will rant about memes, ignoring the fact that I only threw in the word to show that they don’t actually read what you say, and discuss the substance of what was said.

They just have their key phrases ‘You can’t prove love’ , ‘memes are bad’. ‘Dawkins says teaching children about religion is child abuse’, and they trot them out as and when necessary, to drown out what atheists actually write in their books.

The word “meme” isn’t important because of what it means, it’s used when discussing the spread of information.

But if doesn’t convey anything meaningful, why use it?
The Trouble With Memes
The way I see it used most often, the other guy is infected with memes, whereas the speaker has thoughts and ideas.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I can’t find much to say about the interview with Ms. Garrison, other than I don’t think she’s ready for prime time. I agree with what Miller said. I also criticize Harris for saying “we’re at war with Islam,” flirting with torture, and his ludicrous belief that fundamentalists are the ones who really believe in their Holy Book, when what they do is pick and choose different bits than liberals.

intended less as a useful concept and more as a dysphemistic label

I don’t agree with this, I think memes are an interesting concept rather than a pejorative, but I do love “dysphemistic”. Thanks for the new word, Mike!

Really, that was enough? Cool.

But I still have trouble thinking that the four horsemen have an overall negative effect. I think there are two main atheist stereotypes: the angry atheist, and the evil/lost atheist. The four horsemen have done a lot to destroy the latter stereotype if not the former. Frankly, I think destroying the latter stereotype should take precedence. Atheists are no longer some mysterious, faceless minority, but a movement.

An actual question for Ms. Garrison, if she’s still taking them: who is her intended audience?

It doesn’t seem like it could be christians, because she’s just repeating the tired old stereotypes that they already know and (some of them) have completely embraced, and why preach to the choir?

I don’t think it could be atheists, because she didn’t do her research well enough to make anything but a bad impression.

I’m not sure who else would care, so I’m puzzled about her intended audience and what new thing she was intending to offer with this book.

Unless it’s just that preaching to the choir tends to be profitable, there is that, but there are easier ways to make money than by writing a book.

BECKY
Also, saying that God has a controlling hand in the world to the point where He controls individual miscarriages is an overtly simplistic and childlike view of God that doesn’t reflect the fullness of the faith.

CARR
Hey, God isn’t going to lift a finger to prevent miscarriages (let alone a controlling hand)

That’s because there is so such thing as a God.

Why did God design human beings so that they miscarry so often?

Sorry, why did God *guide evolution* to produce human beings so that they miscarry so often (got to get the liberal Christian jargon correct)

God sustains all things in the viewpoint of Christians, except bad things , of course.

All bad things are just jolly bad luck, which God can’t be bothered to do anything about.

And if you don’t exist, how can you be expected to have a controlling hand in the lives of people who pray to you daily for their babies to be born healthy and well?

Mike said:

I’ve only ever seen it used in a pejorative way.

And I’ve only seen it used as a shorter way to describe “stuff that gets passed around so much that you are amazed when somebody hasn’t heard of it/seen it/done it/etc”. Its use in reference to religion or as a pejorative was new to me.

And as far as uncommon words go, think of it this way – if anyone is online reading it, they are only about 3 seconds away from dictionary.com, so please use all you like. I do love a new word…

OLVLZL
which of the heroes of neo-atheism said what

What does this have to do with what I said? Having gone down the route of quoting them directly here, with citations and even links, only to have you folks abruptly change the subject, that’s an unprofitable waste of time. I’ve found if someone pursues a line of argument with moderate rigor, insisting on staying on topic instead of accepting the typical dodges and weavings, you folks run complaining that the nasty old theist is being mean.

Isn’t it funny how neo-atheists feel they have to pretend that the writings of their foremost heroes don’t mean what they mean as a defense of them? A person looking at this situation could be forgiven for believing that you’re ashamed of them and need to invent an idealized version of them. Sort of like how the Catholic far-right in New York deals with the late Francis Cardinal Spelman. William Donohue, in short. No, if people spout bigotry they are responsible for what they said. Note the discussion of James Watson here last fall in the weeks before he proved me right by spouting the racist pseudo-science which finally got him fired.

New Atheists could be silenced pretty quickly by producing these amazingly sophisticated arguments for the existence of God that they haven’t bothered to find out about.

No, I suspect they couldn’t. The four heroes of neo-atheism will only be silenced by one thing, the fad passing and people ignoring them. It will pass, being a fad, then we will find out if this is true. Actually, I kind of like the old style atheists, they had style and tended to know what they were talking about. The intellectual tradition of a bygone age.

I think you’re refering to me but you’re too cowardly to quote me. Please explain to me how my comment was appealing to authority or was a defense of memetics as science. I’m pretty sure I haven’t weighed in on the subject, but hell, you don’t give a shit about what people actually write, and you’re not alone here in this regard.

Well, that’s the trouble, AJ, you think it’s always about you.

If you are pretty sure you haven’t weighed in on the subject, why would you think I was referencing your blather? Are you offering to produce citations leading to the published, peer-reviewed science confirming the existence of memes and an explanation of them? That might prove rather difficult because unless you are innocent enough to believe that what Susan Blackmore gets published at Prometheus – the neo-atheist Regnery – is science, it doesn’t exist. If not, why not do what you said you were going to the last time you talked to me, ignore me? Please. It’s doing me so much good.

Garrison seems not to understand that anyone desiring to do so can concoct their own “Christianity-with-a-twist;” that is, they can just make one up. Joseph Smith did just that with Mormonism. Mary Baker Eddy did the same with Christian Science. David Koresh carried on the tradition in making up the Branch Davidians. There is no “True Christianity Clearinghouse” which enforces a set of doctrines. So, if you can’t find a Christianity that will tell you what you want to hear, roll your own. What could that mean for Christian theology?

Today there are more than 34000 Christianities worldwide, with hundreds more being added each year, propounding such a vast assortment of beliefs that one could conclude that there is no ‘Christianity,’ per se, but rather many distinct religions having only a name common among them. Not all Christianities are theistic; not all Christianities accept miracles; not all Christianities believe in Hell; not all Christianities believe in the divinity of Jesus; not all Christianities believe in the trinity. Realize that this suggests that embracing one particiular Christianity, brings down the damnation from thousands of others. Christianity, as such, constitutes neither a religion, nor a coherent theology of any sort.

So, I ask what would it mean for a Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Stenger to analyze or otherwise decrypt arguments from the brightest lights of Christian theology? Which Christianity’s theology? How large a book would it take to simply mention the doctrinal differences among the myriad Christianities that are significant enough to land oneself in some other Christianity’s Hell? Note that regardless of which Christianity you choose, you are hellbound according to the teachings of some different Christianity. Just last July, for instance, the pope stated emphatically that Roman Catholicism is the one, the only, the unique path whereby salvation can be had. Even the sincerest of believers by simply not being Roman Catholic are bound for an eternity of torture. Evidently, not all Christianities are created equal and the pope wants this known. Though they might call themselves Christian, the pope says non-Roman Catholics are of the wrong Christian pedigree to make it to a cozy eternity. Clearly, some Christians recognize that being Christian is not enough. You must be the right species of Christian. To be sure, turn about is fair play, and lots of non-Roman Catholics would say the same thing about the pope’s long term prospects.

I wonder which Christianity Becky Garrison believes is the right one, and, for that matter, is it the right one? How would she know?

The mere notion of there being a “Christian Theology” is an absurdity. For an educated person like Garrison to make the demand that a critic engage with only the best in theology, suggests, of course, that there would be a consensus amongst Christians as to who should speak for all of Christianity. Does anyone honestly think there exists any one person on this planet who has so internalized the numerous Christianities that they could actually represent them all? Given that the variability in Christianities knows no bounds, to be sure, there exists no such spokesperson. In fact pick fifty elite Christian spokepersons, who will, of course, not agree among themselves, and still the vast diversity in Christianities will go unrepresented.

Beyond the difficulties in finding spokepersons that all Christians would want to have represent their beliefs in a debate — realize that contenders would no doubt be sought among those currently denigrated, at least by many US Christians, as the arrogant, elitist university faculty — there is the gnarly problem that the man in the pew, for the most part, doesn’t care one iota about the musings and ponderings of theologians. Theology, daily life, and religious practice are by no means tightly coupled.

For example, Catholics by doctrine are forbidden to have abortions, and yet among US Christians, Catholics have the highest abortion rate. In general, the layman lives his life as he sees fit: doctrine does not dictate practice. So, if a public intellectual like a Dennett, a Harris, a Stenger, a Dawkins or a Hitchens wants to appeal to the man on the street, why would he couch his arguments in terms that his target audience wouldn’t recognize. If you want to appeal to millions of people, you choose language, arguments and rhetoric that will be accessible to those same millions, not, I repeat, NOT, language, arguments and rhetoric that will be grasped only by ivory tower academics. The likes of Alister McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Dinesh D’Souza, Alvin Plantinga, and Becky Garrison do not, in general, speak for the religious layman.

The atheist authors mentioned here are making appeals to the common man for the application of reason in their lives. That’s the same common man who will in November of this year cast ballots for the President of the United States, a political position that impacts every person on the planet. If this same appeal for reason had come in the late 90’s, perhaps living on this planet would have a very different feel to it these days. If these atheist authors had the prominence then that they do now, perhaps, just perhaps, some voters would have been less influenced by those religious frauds we call clergy, and, again, perhaps, just perhaps, the fortunes of tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children, and tens of thousands of US servicemen and woman would have been rather different. For all those innocent Iraqi victims, their fates were sealed, not by the god they put their undying faith in, but instead by religiously-influenced US voters: remember, Christian Fundamentalists gloating that their God had finally put their long-dreamed-of man into the Presidency? If reason, instead of religion, prevails this November, we may all rest a whole lot easier, and these few atheist authors may well have played a significant role.

Mike, I agree with Sean Carroll on this matter. He probably explains it better than me.

Siamang, you have permission.

I’ve been staying out of the conversation for the most part because (a) I’m a lightweight on theology (grew up atheist, never saw any reason to start believing, since I don’t think there’s a deity I don’t see much reason to read that stuff other than for sociological purposes, and then what really concerns me is more what the specific person I’m talking to or about believes) and (b) I haven’t read the four horsemen’s stuff and don’t really have any intention of doing so. I’m not that interested in the “God exists/no, there’s no such thing” debate at this point in my life.

Mike, that said, I think the horsemen do have a potential benefit, but it does not lie in converting people from Christianity, opening a dialogue, or anything like that. Most of the reactions I’ve seen from Christians of any sort have been ones of anger, so if they’re trying to persuade the average Christian to use reason rather than faith to decide things, I don’t think it’s working that well. The primary benefit I’ve seen is that closeted agnostics and atheists who read them or see them in the press are getting braver and “coming out” more than I’ve seen previously. I think that could have a real positive benefit not only in helping atheists form more of a presence but also ultimately in terms of more atheists being “out” eventually leading to more views being represented within the atheist community and the country as a whole. I live in the South and I’ve often heard people saying things like that they’ve never met an atheist or agnostic. Even having someone say “You know, I don’t believe…..” is progress in a lot of places. I’m not convinced that destroying stereotypes is the goal.. Of course, I could be completely wrong as I read here a while ago that Harris said we shouldn’t even label ourselves as atheists. See? Me = lightweight!

I certainly don’t agree with the proposition I’ve heard represented as being Harris’ that moderate/liberal/progressive religious people are simply apologetics for the fundamentalists (who just seem to choose different bits of scripture as being important) and therefore shouldn’t be worked with. But then, I’m married to a Christian, so my marriage wouldn’t survive very long if I held that sort of view! I think it’s more productive to acknowledge our differences, yes, but to work together on common goals where they exist.

Miller, thanks for the link and the Overton Window concept. I always thought there was something like that going on but had no idea it had a name.

Trust me, I’m well “over it”. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what the New Atheists think.

That doesn’t give me much reason to think that you’re really doing much different than what BG is doing then. If people writing books criticizing the role of faith and religion in culture is the “worst” of atheists, then we must be the absolute best people in the entire world (we’re not, but that’s what that over-the-top exaggeration gets you). I mean, comparing the 4 to Coulter? To fundamentalists? That’s such a reach that it really demeans the conversation as much as anything else.

Also, the impression I got was that her point wasn’t to grapple with all their arguments, but was in fact to deal with precisely those kind of inflammatory “emotionalisms” that Dawkins, et al. do in fact throw around.

Except, in my opinion, the charges that they do are largely overblown and exaggerated by use of classic anti-atheist stereotypes, all under cover of basically misrepresenting what they are saying.

But Becky is right about one thing: the New Atheists are mean and they’re not helping either. I just want to see atheists get better representation out there than those guys.

Your concern is touching and I’ll even give you the good faith of thinking it sincere. But I don’t see much reason to think that it’s accurate. I think any atheist that speaks up, including someone like Hemant, will get called mean no matter what they say. And I don’t think anyone but Hitchens is particularly mean (and for him, it’s as much a literary thing as anything else: he’s a jerk about the war as well and all sorts of things I don’t agree with him on), and so that criticism seems downright sloppy. And thus I think that charge is by and large used as a dodge to avoid having to directly discuss what they are saying. When you actually sit down and read Hitchens or Dawkins, or especially Dennet the claim that they are mean and nasty and evil starts to look very very ridiculous, and makes you really start to question those who insist that it’s true.

I mean, I’m a pretty darn pro-religious non-believer. I can’t said Brian Sapient. But when you say things like this, and I don’t want this to come off the wrong way, but honestly, your “better representation” hopes sound to me a lot like when people used to complain about those civil rights troublemakers stirring up the nice friendly colored folks and making them all angry and activist. Not that atheists are anything close to what African Americans suffered: but it’s the same grating, and perhaps forgivably unintentional, condescension that rings out.

How do you know? As I pointed out, Hemant’s the only one here who’s actually read her book.

I’m responding to what she’s said. Unless her own words don’t represent her, then I think I’m in the clear on that.

Great points, Russ. I enjoyed reading that.

I have to believe there are better apologists for atheism out there than these guys.

There are atheists who are informed and articulate and just as important have an abiding sense of fairness and honesty but in my experience they’re not especially interested in acting as apologists for atheism. So, what of the vast majority of the neo-atheists? What purpose do they serve? They could serve as a much needed source of critique of the beliefs and, much more importantly, the actions which stem from self-purported religious people. But they don’t since they are more interested in the high school clique style behavior that is just about their entire repertoire. It’s so much easier when you don’t have to do all that difficult reading and learning and practicing a single instead of a double standard. In that they are not much different from other fundamentalists and bigots who generally don’t hold themselves to even the most basic levels of knowledge, reasoning and morality. Perhaps this is why atheists who have integrity generally don’t bother.

Liberals, both religious and non-religious who are willing to do what is necessary to being taken seriously by people with a sense of fairness do a far better job of trying of pointing out the problems with religion, many within their own congregations and sects.

OLZVL
Liberals, both religious and non-religious who are willing to do what is necessary to being taken seriously by people with a sense of fairness do a far better job of trying of pointing out the problems with religion, many within their own congregations and sects.

CARR
Wow!

Apparently religious liberal people do a far better job of pointing out there is no evidence for God than Dawkins does!

I asked OIvzl a serious discussion question, which was ignored with more name calling about people being ‘arrogant’.

NYCatheist, not necessarily. Everyone who is a religious believer and writes about it isn’t automatically an apologist, a huge literature of criticism of religion by devout believers exists. As for an honest atheist, anyone who begins by acknowledging that their rejection of the existence of a god is a belief and not scientific knowledge would be a good place to start, though people like that tend towards being classified as agnostics. I kind of like atheists of the “I don’t believe there is a God” type. They’re telling a truth instead of asserting a falsehood and generally are more pleasant. Though they generally don’t make the best sellers list by hawking hate filled volumes of nonsense. Jonathan Miller strikes me as being like that, John Mortimer, certainly is one.

Carr, there was a question in that? I see an assertion but no question. Which isn’t much of a surprise either. If you meant it as a question I provided a complete answer to it. The answer would be no, religious liberals would almost certainly know that the quest for evidence on the question either way is certain to not give any evidence that could honestly be called that. Dawkins is too arrogant to admit to the limits that make this true, replacing assertions of certainty or his hypocritical applications of pseudo-probability arguments for honesty in the matter.

Olvlzl, I agree with you there. I love Jonathan Miller.

I hope you also enjoy another atheist writer named Hemant Mehta. He’s pretty well known around these parts. 😉

valmorian, the automatic charge that someone who finds Dawkins arrogant hasn’t read him is hilarious, it is nearly universal that people who have read, heard and met Dawkins find him arrogant, even some of those who agree with him. If that’s true you wonder how he could have gotten on the best seller list.

Having quoted him and addressed the two more absurd arguments in his God Delusion at length here before, you have no grounds for making that assertion.

OLVZL
The answer would be no, religious liberals would almost certainly know that the quest for evidence on the question either way is certain to not give any evidence that could honestly be called that.

CARR
So why is Dawkins ‘arrogant’ to point out that there is no evidence for any gods?

And why are the ‘half a dozen immediate replies’ for what you and Dawkins agree on – that there is no evidence for any gods?

MikeClawson,

You said,

No what I mean is that besides being unnecessarily rude, their critiques are just poorly done.

Putting this together with some of the other comments you’ve made on this thread, I fully appreciate your call for civil discourse on this matter. However, it seems to me that, regarding the Four Horsemen, you might be confusing literary style for rudeness. As I think back to Mr. Mehta’s exchange with Garrison, I wonder how often she would be construed as “rude” instead of “satirical.” I truly do not see any of these authors as fundamentally rude, and that is especially so in the contents of their books.

Dennett appears to me to have gone out of his way to be exceedingly cordial while making his appeal for the scientific study of religion. I see him as downright pleasant. Someone else on this thread noted that Harris is consistently congenial and I agree. Dawkins and Hitchens both can appear abrasive in person, but I see none of that in their writings. They do not mollycoddle the religious, that’s true, but, then, I’m sure that they see it like this: someone claiming an ally that is omniscient and omnipotent doesn’t need mollycoddling.

All four of these authors work in areas where they and their colleagues are as blunt as a hammer blow and brutally honest when assessing each other’s ideas. Indeed, they would have no public standing at all if their ideas did not aggregate into a consistent whole. If their bluntness and honesty is rude or otherwise undesirable, shouldn’t we apply a similar set of standards to religious discourse wherein clergy can assign salvation-determining truth assessements to each others version of Christianity, like the pope’s statements last July claiming that only Roman Catholicism can clear the path to salvation. If you want rude, to me, that is as rude as it gets.

Because it is a clergyman framing it in his religious terms, other religions choose not to denounce it, but he is telling all other Christians that their version of Christianity is wrong and it can only lead to hell. Maybe if he donned his magisterial garb, looked out over St. Peter’s Square and said, “Anyone who calls himself Christian but is not Roman Catholic is a rotten damned idiot, bound for the underworld,” it would dawn on other Christians how demeaning and cruel that truly is. Then, maybe they could more objectively confront their own version of the same harangue. Perhaps, you have a specific take on it, Mike: which Christianity is the one that assures us a path to heaven, and, thus, by default, damns all others?

For me, Mike, the thousands of Christianties with mutually exclusive criteria for grabbing the golden ring of salvation constitute one enormous reductio ad absurdum: each is proof that the others is wrong. How can anyone justify believing any Christianity’s doctrine when, by the lights of a different Christianity it is wrong to the extent of being damnation-worthy? At the risk of being excessively blunt, honest or rude, I must ask, how does that make any sense whatsoever? Don’t Christians ask that amongst themselves?

To me this seems so much like their God whispering different things in different people’s ears, that I must conclude that they have arrived at their conclusions, not through supernatural causation, as they claim, but instead through their own imaginings. I don’t see how, if they are all listening to a loving father who, at least according to the Bible demands that they “love thy neighbor,” they can reach such disparate ends. I don’t mean for anything I say here to be offensive, but to me, this is about as senseless, incomprehensible and incoherent as any idea can get. I don’t understand how people can defend it, and I don’t see why people deride those like the Four Horsemen who offer a reasoned hope that relying on human traits and faculties can actually direct us to see each other as fellow human beings as opposed to sect-labelled abstractions that are less than human and deserving of eternal hell-fire because they have not heard the correct whisperings from God.

To me there truly is something bizarre about this situation. One man, notably a religious man, stands before the world and basically tells everyone who is not part of his religious mindset, “You’re all going to Hell, every last one of you,” and no one takes notice; no one cares; no one seems concerned about being lost forever. Somebody else, a non-religious man, with but the scantest fraction of the religious man’s billion-person following, tells his relatively miniscule audience, “That’s hogwash, you’re not going to hell, nor is anyone else,” for which that man gets vilified, demonized, berated or simply dismissed. It would be hard to match that kind of irony anywhere but religion.

MikeClawson,

And so far I haven’t read anything by the New Atheists that I didn’t have at least a half a dozen immediate replies for.

And every time I’ve read one of your replies they’ve been meaningless nonsense. You consider this a good argument?

Of course, the weakness of this particular argument is in point #3. Dawkins seems not to realize that classical theistic belief has always posited that God has eternally existed “outside” the natural order (i.e. apart from both space and, more importantly, time), so rules about how things work within nature (i.e. moving from simplicity to complexity) do not necessarily apply to God.

That could explain anything as the explanation of anything else, it’s the very definition of meaningless. Your reply is to posit something that has always been and can do anything, yet there can be no evidence of?

That’s the first argument of yours I could find, which I assume is one of the ones you often boast about, easily showing how silly the “Four Horseman’s” arguments are. Arguments you suggest are “sloppy, amatuerish”. Well, we can see what you can produce, I wonder what the atheists you praise think of it.

It’s pretty hard to understand how the commonly touted attributes of this God would work outside of time or space, since the only clue we’ve ever had about how they work requires time and space.

MikeClawson,

Sorry Aj, I can’t do anything about your inability to understand simple philosophical arguments.

Do you think I wouldn’t expect this type of response from you? This is just like your previous ones in this thread, and elsewhere on this blog, it’s completely lacking content. Like you could explain these simple philosophical arguments in terms I could understand. I’d even accept an explanation of these simple philosophical arguments that I couldn’t, but a majority who read this blog could understand. In your next blog post on here, that would be great, show me how obviously unintelligent I am.

No, it’s not style, it’s what they say. Calling people who disagree with you about the existence of God “delusional”, “irrational”, “dangerous”, or “poisonous” is rude. They may honestly believe these statements and even be able to argue for them, but they are still offensive (and IMO, just plain wrong).

So what you’re saying is, if you think that believing in God is a delusion (not delusional, that’s incorrect), irrational, dangerous, or poisonous, out of politeness you must not say it. Read your comments back to yourself. I bet believers will find this offensive, I find most of what you write to be offensive, but I’m not calling for you to not post because of it. To say that we must not speak out against things because people will find it offensive is nonsense. There’s much of what is important, and probably to you to, that people would find offensive, that I feel would be immoral not to speak out about. I’ve seen generals and dictators feel offended by people just remarking that genocide, rape as a weapon of war, etc… is happening under their orders. You disagree with the “Four Horseman”, so what? You hardly care to argue against their points, but how is what they say rude?

No one’s asking them to mollycoddle. I’m just asking them not to be offensive. Again we’re slipping into the Sapient fallacy of thinking there are only two extreme options here.

And you define offensive as the implications of their arguments. I’m sorry that the fact that your shit stinks it important when I’m pointing out that I don’t want it near me. I’m sorry if you feel offended by that, I wish it wasn’t so, but I feel it necessary to state it so.

Carr, if you are so foolish as to look for evidence in questions that can’t yield evidence, something that all the neo-atheists seem to be foolish enough to insist on, it’s not my fault.

Having looked at the logic and knowledge of science among you adherents of the religion of scientism, that would seem to be the primary motive of neo-atheism, ignorance of logic and science and especially their inherent limits.

Faith is not compatible with rationalism, I don’t see how that’s controversial,

Oh, my. Who knew? Just think of the revision this is going to require, Well, from Gregor Mendel to Theodosius Dobzhansky, that pretty much calls into question genetics. Let’s see, Occam’s razor, from that faith-head William of Occam, don’t see how the neo-atheists are going to get along without it, but since it’s from a faith head it can’t be reliable. Pretty much classical logic, modern algebra, …. Now that we know the work of countless religious people is incompatible with rationalism looks like pretty much the whole modern world is going to have to get thrown on the junk heap.

With just memes and his penchant for telling tall tails from the Pleistocene to back up his evolutionary psychology, looks like Dawkins is pretty much faith based too.

Do you even stop to think, AJ? Or do you just repeat this nonsense automatically?

MikeClawson,

Your attitude doesn’t allow for genuine conversation. If you make false claims about what people have argued, it’s not because of a disagreement that I am saying you haven’t read or understood them.

Your claim is that the “Four Horseman” have answered the metaphysical question of the existence of God, “no”, goes along with you calling them “apologists for atheism” that wouldn’t make sense unless they held the position of “strong atheism”. This claim is wrong.

When I point out this, you come out with a comment much like this one, in this case about “just because someone doesn’t agree with you or the authors you like, doesn’t mean they didn’t read or understand”. That’s not my freaking point, and you know it.

Clearly whether the “Four Horseman” have this metaphysical belief or not isn’t affected by whether Mike Clawson disagrees with them. This is basically your claim, and it makes as much sense as most of your other comments, none at all. Whether you disagree with them or not, Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett do not say they have a metaphysical belief in the nonexistence of a God.

This is a disagreement in your summary of the positions of the “Four Horseman”, as well as a few more of your claims. I can only assume that you haven’t understood them, haven’t read them, or what seems now more likely, are deliberately misrepresenting them because you’re an arsehole.

AJ: “When he says that religion poisons everything, he doesn’t seem to be saying that all religions poison all things.”

And theologians are accused of meaningless hair splitting!

There is definitely a book to be written of the ways in which neo-atheists deny that their demi-gods and heroes have written what’s there to be seen in their own publications. It’s a clear phenomenon. My guess it’s due to the clear inconsistencies in reasoning due to their asserting their position is based in science when it can’t be. But I don’t have the time to research the issues necessary so someone else will need to do it.

Some, such as AJ are quite able to say something AND its opposite with two posts and when you point it out respond by calling you a name.

AJ: “I think that’s a tongue in cheek comment that’s inline with some other comments in the book, and not to be taken literally.”

“Not to be taken literally”? Now where have I heard that before? 🙂

AJ: “This comment would as I read it, either support my conclusion (he’s using different definitions of ‘sane’) or Dawkins is severely contradicting himself in a short number of words.”

Actually, what Dawkins is doing is downright Machiavellian. He’d have to be a blithering idiot not to recognize that repeatedly using the word “delusion” in conjunction with religion will inevitably be read as communicating that religious people are insane, and he also would be a blithering idiot not to recognize that saying outright that religious people are insane would be recognized as ridiculous, even by fellow atheists. Dawkins is not obviously a blithering idiot. Instead, he repeatedly abuses the word “delusion” to imply what he knows he can’t get away with saying outright, and uses these half-hearted disclaimers to give himself an out so that he can’t be easily accused of saying outright that the religious are crazy. What do I mean by half-hearted? Notice that as he is saying that he doesn’t mean “delusion” that way, he nonetheless inserts synonyms like “mad” or “dotty” in his response. It’s not so different from the way garden-variety advertisers imply what they cannot say, or for an even crueler analogy, not so different from the way that Bush implied that Saddam was connected to 9/11 without outright saying so.

If you think that this is a far too cynical way of describing what Dawkins is doing, then let me ask you this: why doesn’t the master communicator Dawkins phrase his words so that it is obvious that he isn’t calling religious people crazy?

I don’t know about where you come from but delusion, and deluded are commonly used in English outside of mental health, as well as insane, dotty, and mad.

Yet they still carry the baggage from their use as psychiatric terms. Their connotations are pretty clear.

The guy who miscalls himself “nowoo” writes:

The APA had to specifically exclude things like “article[s] of religious faith” from the psychiatric definition, which implies that religious beliefs are so similar to delusions that they would otherwise qualify as delusions if they hadn’t been explicitly excluded for being “ordinarily accepted.”

You neglect an earlier part of the definition:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

First, there is the part about “what almost everyone else believes.” Considering that most people in a religion are born into it, they are surrounded by those who believe as they do. Second, there is the “obvious proof or evidence to the contrary” part. Just about no religion has obvious evidence against it. If one examines more closely, yes, there may be evidence against a particular religion if it isn’t totally unfalsifiable, but disproving a religion is not a trivial exercise. Given this, even if the APA hadn’t explicitly listed religion as a example of a false belief that is not a delusion, it would not be considered such.

“nowoo” [sic] quoting Sam Harris:

you have to recognise that the status quo which you are supporting by your non-criticism

Do you realize how ridiculous it is to be talking about the religious not criticizing their fellow religious in a thread about someone who writes for The Wittenburg Door?

APA and dictionaries may have definitions that are inconsistant with the way Dawkins appears to be using the word. There are dictionaries with definitions that would be consistant with his usage. In his book, and in the comment I quoted, Dawkins doesn’t seem to be using the term as you imply, at least not in his title and about supernatural gods.

I don’t really understand the APA’s definition, and don’t accept that it has authority, or any other organisation, to define words. English doesn’t have an official language, with official words. I’m sure there are technical terms that we commonly use differently all the time that would not apply to official definitions according to organisations of professionals.

Sometimes religious beliefs do have evidence contrary to them. Apparantly the APA defined a religious belief as a false belief, believed by the person’s culture or subculture. That the difference a belief being delusional according to psychology is whether the person with that belief belongs to one subculture or another is worrying.

I am interested in knowing whether people who have delusions of grandeur, e.g. believe themselves to be Napolean, do so in a manner that is falsifiable. Whether they test the mind/body problem or not. Whether a psychiatrist or psychologist could know whether someone having delusional jealousy has a wife or husband that is cheating on them or not. Do they follow the spouse around?

“‘The way I see it used most often, the other guy is infected with memes, whereas the speaker has thoughts and ideas.’

Yep, that exactly how I see it used most of the time too. It’s a way of implying that the other person’s arguments are not actually valid rational ideas that he has given a lot of thought to, that he is instead just parroting back some “meme” he picked up somewhere. It then becomes just a lazy way of not having to actually engage with someone’s arguments.”

Have either of you stopped to think about what’s actually going on? A smart memeticist will admit that all ideas are memes, even his own. The point is that many apologists make arguments along the lines of “the conscience implies the existence of God” or “moral beliefs cannot be explained naturally” or “my belief in God cannot have come from anything but God.” Memetics cannot, and should not, be used as a method of disproof for worldviews. That is, Dennett or whoever shouldn’t go around saying “Christianity is false because it’s a meme” – I don’t know if that’s what happens, and if it is, that’s unfortunate and it’s something I completely reject. But what memetics can and should be used as is a method of disproof for claims of necessary relation. For instance, with memetics, we can disprove the idea that God’s existence is a prerequisite for moral belief. The reason no “serious” philosophers have bothered to deal with memetics is because it can only disprove notions that no serious philosopher would consider in the first place (which doesn’t mean no philosopher has – Peter Kreeft, for instance, makes an argument from the conscience that can easily be disproved via memetics). This is just an atheist escalation in the PR war that theists have been waging for seemingly ever.

Furthermore, whether you like it or not, memetics as a field has been in practice for a long time now. Marketing, for instance, is almost entirely a memetic exercise: how to control the spread of beliefs in a target population. The only reason I can see that it hasn’t been accepted by “higher” disciplines (science, philosophy, etc.) is that, as I said, it actually doesn’t matter much to them. Perhaps philosophy will start getting interested in it as experimental philosophy emerges, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Finally, on a different topic, it’d be nice if theists (esp. Christians) actually played by the rules with respect to disproving abstract systems – accepting that a contradiction is bad, refraining from ad hoc or ad hominem arguments, etc. – but they don’t. Perhaps if the theological community were willing to open itself up to doubt more (i.e., play by the rules), the non-theological community would have less motivation to explode like they have done. I don’t think I could ever write something as impolite as what Dawkins, e.g., has written, but it’s hardly difficult to see why he would.

First off, I could probably find a quote of yours that disparages the very idea of memetics, because that’s how this discussion started off, but now that you’ve backed off that stance I’ll let it go.

“Or rather, how does memetics do this in a way that isn’t more effectively and thoroughly done through simple, old-fashioned philosophical reasoning? Perhaps, as you say, memetics is irrelevant to philosophy because philosophers already have their own means of disproving such claims without having to reference sociological phenomenon like memetics that are extrinsic to the arguments themselves.”

I don’t think it’s anything that can be done through “simple, old-fashioned reasoning,” since the original claims themselves weren’t based on anything. There wasn’t a theory in place that could either prove or disprove them: that’s what memetics is. It isn’t, even, that philosophers can disprove them, it’s that they don’t care – this entire memetics thing is largely taking place outside of serious philosophy. Like I said, it’s much more of an issue of how one side or the other is seen – of how the fundamental questions get represented in op-eds and bestsellers – than anything else. It just so happens that the loudest theists traditionally made arguments without any reference to verifiable reality, so that when a system was discovered that was able to cite evidence, they were pretty much doomed to bear the brunt of it. Now, as to why they did that, we come to my second point…

“The mainline, liberal theological community has been open to these things for decades – over a century now actually. One of my major complaints against New Atheists like Dawkins is they way they tend to equivocate on the attitudes and behaviors of vastly different religious groups, assuming that the beliefs and behaviors of fundamentalists are somehow representative of all religious people.”

I truly hope you’re right, and part of me even thinks you are. But then I look at the electoral results in this country (the U.S.) and I have to wonder: is this the result of people who are open to doubt? Theoretically, the U.S. being a democracy, the distribution of governmental power will represent the distribution of interests on the part of its citizens. So it seems like we’re left with two options: either, contrary to what you say, the majority are actually hardliners who aren’t willing to compromise; or the rest of you (here I assume you’re a member of the mainline, theological community) need to step it up. I notice, for instance, that at least a few times on this blog, atheists have stated clearly and without exception that they had issues with some or all of the New Atheists. I don’t see any similar criticisms of Christian extremists coming from you, though, even on your own blog. That’s hardly an equal compromise.

“Do I really need list all the same websites and organizations of progressive Christian organizations who stand in opposition to the Religious Right that I’ve already listed numerous times before?”

Ah, but you see, that’s not the same. What you’re doing is passive: “here’s some work other people have done, I agree with them.” What we’re doing is active: “after having directly interacted with the texts, here’s what I think.” You had a perfect opportunity to criticize one of your own – that is, in fact, the premise of this whole situation – and you flatly refused. What you are doing is not the same as what we have been doing.

“And do I need to point out one more time that, even if your reference to electoral politics is valid (which I don’t think it is – it’s too simplistic to think that religion alone is the sole determining factor in how most people vote), the fact is that conservative Christians only made up about 30% of George Bush’s support, and that even if every non-Christian in America voted against Bush, that still leaves tens of millions of Christians who also voted against him?”

Not directly, of course, or else Romney’s candidacy would be a joke (although, as it is, he’s under considerable pressure because of his religion – you don’t think that’s worrying?). The funny thing about your argument is that, despite the remaining 70% of Bush’s support (all of whom are conservative, yes? and most of whom are Christian, yes? so how, again, does that not qualify them as conservative Christians?) and the tens of millions of Christians who voted against him, he won. The reason he won, arguably, is that you guys – the sane Christians – are given to keeping your big mouths shut when it comes to criticizing other Christians (even in a relatively benign context, like this conversation). This amounts to tacit support on your part, so it’s hard to see how you don’t share in the blame.

Karen, you and I must be reading different posts. The only criticism that I see from Mike is related to tone. That’s a literary criticism, not a substantive one. That’s not good enough for the same reason it isn’t good enough to say, “I’m sorry that you feel bad about what I did.” This, too, is tacit acceptance and support of the misrepresentations that she (evidently) published and doesn’t see anything wrong with supporting. Maybe this is the sort of arrangement you’re willing to live with – i.e., one in which theists get to say whatever they want so long as they dress it up with the right tone, whereas atheists have to watch not only tone but also content – but I’d rather push for something a little more symmetrical.

larryniven: I take it that you are not a right-wing Republican. So why haven’t “you guys” (moderate Republican, Democrat, 3rd party or affiliation of your choice) done more to stop the neo-conservative Republican juggernaut?
Does it bother you when Sam Harris plays the neo-cons game with statements like “we are at war with Islam” and his winking at torture?

Or here’s a thought, we could all stop pointing fingers and instead take responsibility for doing something about our collective body politic.

Second: how did Becky present a “blatantly unfair” picture of memetics? I’m not going to defend anything else she has said, but I too am unclear about what a meme is and why this concept of learning and cultural dissemination provides any sort of unifying framework that would bring together or improve on insights from anthropology, linguistics, and cognitive psychology. It seems like most proponents of memetics are just unaware of work that has been done in those fields. I’ve never met a memetics proponent who was familiar with Stith Thompson, for example.

Memes are an interesting idea but until we have better understanding of whether they actually exist and whether they do what some folks say they do, we shouldn’t go over the top with them, shouldn’t take them to an extreme. The product of extreme applications of any new concept is almost always unfortunate.

Now I finally understand what my high school algebra teacher meant when he said:

“The product of the memes is equal to the product of the extremes.”